Re: What is annoying in the flattr buttons?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 09:28, Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ]] Michael Gilbert
> | On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:27:08 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > You don't think so. I do. One of the reasons is it puts a, IMO too
> | > low value on other, similar work, so by taking petty donations for
> | > small pieces of work, you are lowering the value of my work too.
> | > Lowering the value of the work your codevelopers are doing is, IMO,
> | > rude. I realise that's not the intention of asking for money, but
> | > the effect is there.
> | How can you possibly reduce the monetary value of volunteer work? Or
> | more inquisitively, how is it even feasible to assign a price to such
> | work in the first place?
> I did not write monetary value, I wrote value.
> By not assigning a monetary value to the work, it gets valued by its
> usefulness (or prettyness or whatever). Once you assign a monetary
> value to it, the non-monetary value gets in the background because
> people will use the monetary value as a proxy for its non-monetary
> Let me make a simile, which like all similes are not perfect, but might
> get my point across, since it seems people find it hard to understand:
> Assume you are helping a friend move house. They offer you €2 for the
> work. Would you be happy? I'd be insulted, since what they're doing is
> assigning a very low value on your work, rather than just saying «Thanks
> a lot for the help» afterwards. If they just said «Thank you», the
> value they put on your work and thereby how appreciated you feel will be
Would you feel better if the friend offered €1000? €10k? If Raphael
made €10k/month (instead of €15), would your response be different?
What's your problem actually? I'm losing track here (IE, I don't know
what your point is).